Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society – Appellant
Versus
B. Mahesh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5784 of 2022, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7015 of 2022
Decided On : 23-08-2022
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 – Inherent Jurisdiction – In exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC, it cannot be said that civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues – A Court having jurisdiction over relevant subject matter has power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion – Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by jurisdictional court, same is binding on parties until it is set aside by appellate court or through other remedies provided in law – Section 151 of CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with existing provisions of law – Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under CPC – Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews – A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in CPC – Recalling a final decree in cannot be countenanced under Section 151 of CPC – High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC, to hear and pass a detailed judgment recalling its earlier final decree, rather than directing respondents to pursue effective alternate remedies under law. (Paras 27, 28 and 35)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 96 to 100 – Right to file appeal – Any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with leave of Court – A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to suit, can prefer an appeal with leave of Court – Sine qua non for filing appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned. (Paras 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
High Court, on merits, held that the appellant had obtained final decree dated 19.09.2013 by suppressing certain information and by exercising its powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has recalled its earlier final decree dated 19.09.2013. At the same time, the High Court clarified that recalling of the order would not enure to the benefit of the State of Telangana, whose appeal had already been dismissed, or respondents, who would have to establish their right, title and interest in the subject property in appropriate proceedings. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court recalling final decree dated 19.09.2013, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Appeal.
Findings of Court:
In the present circumstances, it may have been more apposite for the concerned Judge to have recused from this case. The appellant should have brought it to the notice of Senior Judge at the very first instance, and not at this belated stage.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. RAMANA, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the appellant against impugned final judgment and order dated 21.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Telangana in Interlocutory Application No. 5/2020 in Application No. 837/2013 in C.S. No. 7/1958.
3. The brief facts of this case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: the present dispute relates to Sy. No. 57 (Old Sy. No. 274) in Shamsguda Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana forming part of S. No. 252 of the list of Mukthas in the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S. No. 7/1958.
4. The underlying original suit was filed in 1953 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad by one Smt. Sultana Jahan Begum, the daughter of Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur. The plaintiff was seeking partition of properties of the Nawab known as Asman Jahi Paigah. This suit was ultimately transferred to the file of the High Court numbered as C.S. No. 7/1958. The suit along with certain applications were disposed of by a preliminary-cum-final decree dated 06.04.1959 passed by the learned Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment recorded that the plaintiff withdraws the suit against defendant Nos. 27 to 49. It also recorded that a compromise was affected amongst some of the defendants. The litigation relating to this original suit subsequently enters a complicated phase, wherein several different parallel proceedings take place. Suffice to state, that even after 60 years, the issues in the same are not settled.
5. It is the say of the present appellant that they acquired the property in Sy. No. 57 of Shamsguda Village under an Assignment Deed dated 16.09.2000 executed by the earlier predecessor-in-interest under the preliminary decree. The predecessors-in-interest had also executed a Conveyance Deed dated 03.08.2003 in favour of the appellant, conveying the schedule property with specific boundaries. As the earlier Assignment Deed dated 16.09.2000 and Conveyance Deed dated 03.08.2003 were unregistered documents, the predecessors-in-interest also executed a registered document in favour of the appellant, namely a ‘Deed of Declaratio/ Confirmation’ dated 12.08.2011.
6. On the above basis, an Application (No. 837/2013) was filed in C.S. No. 7/1958 by the appellant herein along with a party (not before us) for passing a final decree in their favour in respect of property measuring Acs. 92.56 cts. and Acs. 27.00 gts. land in Sy. No. 57 of Shamsguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A further prayer was made for a direction to deliver the physical possession of the said properties.
7. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the said Application in part vide final decree dated 19.09.2013 as sought by the appellant, and granted a declaration that they are the absolute owners of Acs. 92.56 cts. in Sy. No. 57 of Shamsguda Village.
8. The State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the said order in O.S.A. No. 3744 of 2014. After formation of the State of Telangana on the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Telangana filed I.A. No. 2 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay of 182 days in filing the Appeal. Responding to the said I.A. the appellant stated that the delay in filing of the Appeal is much longer, amounting to 729 days. Thereafter, I.A. No. 2 of 2017 was filed by the State of Telangana to condone a delay of 913 days in filing the Appeal.
9. By order dated 22.12.2020, the Division bench of the High Court of Telangana dismissed the two applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, being I.A. No. 2 of 2016 and I.A. No. 2 of 2017. As a consequence of the same, the State of Telangana’s appeal, O.S.A. No. 3744 of 2014 was dismissed.
10. In these circumstances, after lapse of nearly 7 years since the final decree was g
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – In exercising powers under Section 151 of CPC, it cannot be said that civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues – Recalling a f....
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a recall application from a non-party after a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, as it becomes functus officio.
Recall of decree – Inherent power may be exercised to undo result achieved by practising fraud upon court – But, if fraud is played upon party, they have to resort to provisions available under law t....
The court can use inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall orders obtained under a legal misconception, ensuring justice is served in cases of procedural irregularity.
Compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is essential for challenging an ex parte judgment, and procedural missteps do not invalidate ....
Courts hold inherent power to recall judgments if obtained through fraud or concealed material facts; non-parties cannot challenge compromise decrees under CPC provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
